The Student Room Group

What does it mean to be a "normal person"

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Bang Outta Order
Omds Josh low it yh

U wot fam?

Original post by I AM GROOT 1
Are you guys okay :rofl:

Am I okay? Yeah I'm great. Fantastic. Exceptional.

Original post by Bang Outta Order
I'm fine. Ask him why he's scared.

Scared? Nah, I just don't wanna be banned
Original post by Arthur_Morgan
U wot fam?


Am I okay? Yeah I'm great. Fantastic. Exceptional.


Scared? Nah, I just don't wanna be banned

Good to hear:h:

We cant get Josh banned :cry2: @Bang Outta Order
Original post by Arthur_Morgan
U wot fam?


Am I okay? Yeah I'm great. Fantastic. Exceptional.


Scared? Nah, I just don't wanna be banned

Copout. I told you dm me one to one.
Original post by Bang Outta Order
Copout. I told you dm me one to one.

Yes. And no. I'm a good boi now. You're my sugar daddy. Buy me things.
Original post by tazarooni89
A person born with no arms or legs is only abnormal in the respect that they have no arms or legs. But if you consider the fact that they do have eyes, a nose and a mouth, then they are normal in that respect.

Everybody has some things that make them different from most other people, and some things that make them similar to most other people. It just depends which features you happen to be talking about.


Yes but they still have no arms or legs. If i have 5 eggs and one is red whereas the others are all white it doenst mean that red egg is a normal egg just because its still shares a lot of similarities to the other 4 eggs.

Yes all people are different but as i said before we are not that diverse and when you look at groups you see concentrations of certain features that define a normal person. So you cant just say "well if we consider x feature they are normal" because the range of what is and isnt normal or the features that make somone abnormal are defined by the group you are considering. Normal does not mean you have to have an exact copy of what everyone else has but it does mean that you fall within the norm defined by the group you are looking at.
Original post by Bang Outta Order
It is another angle in the Pythagorean theorem. Or whatever the **** sohcahtoa is..sine..cosine...tangent...

I'll trade Spanish verbs for the soccer toer

He
Has
Ha
Hemos
Habeís
Hahaha do I even give a toss about Spanish anymore?
Original post by Ragman75
Yes but they still have no arms or legs. If i have 5 eggs and one is red whereas the others are all white it doenst mean that red egg is a normal egg just because its still shares a lot of similarities to the other 4 eggs.

Yes all people are different but as i said before we are not that diverse and when you look at groups you see concentrations of certain features that define a normal person. So you cant just say "well if we consider x feature they are normal" because the range of what is and isnt normal or the features that make somone abnormal are defined by the group you are considering. Normal does not mean you have to have an exact copy of what everyone else has but it does mean that you fall within the norm defined by the group you are looking at.


But as I said, it depends which features you’re looking at.

If you paint one egg red it is only abnormal in terms of colour. In terms of size, taste or whatever, it is normal. In this case you’ve implicitly chosen colour as the feature under examination, but it could have been anything.

For example, are you a normal person? I could say no, because you use The Student Room, which most people in the world do not. But if we’re talking about how many arms or legs you have, I’m guessing you probably are normal. Is Bill Gates a “normal”’person? You might say no, because he is one of the richest in the world. But you might say yes, because he looks like average joe.

“Normal” on its own is not a particularly meaningful concept unless you also define which particular feature it is with respect to.
(edited 4 years ago)
Normal = not him
then am i normal?
What does it mean to be a "normal person"

Err, somebody who doesn't spend 23 hrs a day on student forums promoting Chinese state propaganda?
Original post by tazarooni89
But as I said, it depends which features you’re looking at.

If you paint one egg red it is only abnormal in terms of colour. In terms of size, taste or whatever, it is normal. In this case you’ve implicitly chosen colour as the feature under examination, but it could have been anything.

For example, are you a normal person? I could say no, because you use The Student Room, which most people in the world do not. But if we’re talking about how many arms or legs you have, I’m guessing you probably are normal. Is Bill Gates a “normal”’person? You might say no, because he is one of the richest in the world. But you might say yes, because he looks like average joe.

“Normal” on its own is not a particularly meaningful concept unless you also define which particular feature it is with respect to.

No completely wrong you don't understand the term. You cant arbitrarily choose what features one must or must not posses to be normal because normal is not an idiocentric concept, its a mathematical one that applies to sets If you are alone on desert island there is no normal, if you are only considering one thing there is no normal, if you have less than 3 things there is no normal and if your set contains elements that share nothing there is no normal. Again i cant state this enough the term normal is not "what do I think is normal or what features do I think define someone as normal", normal means looking at some set of elements then looking at said elements to see what most of them share. On top of that when we are talking about people the culture you are considering(set of people) determines what differences do and do not have weight.

The red egg is not normal because the group i have decided to find the norm of is "a group of eggs" which are mostly brown. What is the norm is determined by what elements are within the set and what most of them share.

So going back to your example I would be normal for using the student room because although most people dont browse this website most people also dont spend thier leisure time doing the exact same things, in that if you polled 1000 people of all of the things people do in their free time you would see that only a small minority had duplicate lists. Moreover a website like this one is not behold the pale of what my country considered abnormal so even if most people did only do the same 5 things I still would be normal.
Original post by Ragman75
No completely wrong you don't understand the term. You cant arbitrarily choose what features one must or must not posses to be normal

But in your egg example you have arbitrarily chosen colour.

Unless these 5 eggs are otherwise identical (which in reality they cannot possibly be), there may be hundreds of other features shared by most of them. But you have singled out colour as the feature you care about. Why not size? Why not shape? Why not taste? Why not the animal that laid it? Why not the supermarket that sold it?

normal means looking at some set of elements then looking at said elements to see what most of them share.


There are millions of things that most people share. But any given human being will probably deviate from that list in some way or another.

This means that pretty much every human is abnormal, because it is almost always possible to find something that most humans share that this particular one doesn’t.


Consider the following set of numbers:
{-3, 5, 8, 15, 9}

Which ones are abnormal?

You could say that -1 is abnormal because it is the only negative. Or that 5 is abnormal because it is the only prime. Or that 8 is abnormal because it is the only even. Or that 15 is abnormal because it is the only double-digit. Or that 9 is abnormal because it is the only square.

There are many features that are shared by most (but not all) of the numbers. All of them have some of these features but lack others. So does this mean they’re all normal, or all abnormal?

Unless I make it clear which features I’m interested in, how will you be able to tell?
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by AngeryPenguin
There is a disgustingly ablelist tweet by a failed cis-het white male "comedian":
https://twitter.com/nickmullen/status/1220207303074467840

Two different people are two different people, there is no situation in which they sum up to be just ONE person - "normal" or otherwise.

But it made me wonder. Why do people see things in terms of normality? Why is being "white" seen as the "norm"? Why is heterosexuality the "norm"?

Is this real or a parody? Either way it's funny xD

Norm is just the majority really. Most people (in this country anyway) are white, heterosexual and not disabled; they're the norm. Doesn't mean people who aren't this are weird, it just means that they are exceptions to the norm. And that's ok, that's not an inherently bad thing
Original post by Just my opinion
What does it mean to be a "normal person"

Err, somebody who doesn't spend 23 hrs a day on student forums promoting Chinese state propaganda?

-10 social credit for wrong thinking
Original post by tazarooni89
But in your egg example you have arbitrarily chosen colour.

Unless these 5 eggs are otherwise identical (which in reality they cannot possibly be), there may be hundreds of other features shared by most of them. But you have singled out colour as the feature you care about. Why not size? Why not shape? Why not taste? Why not the animal that laid it? Why not the supermarket that sold it?

No I haven't arbitrarily chosen colour, because the colour is the only thing that is different among them. Abnormality is determined by a process of elimination of similarities so that you can find meaningful differences from the norm. If one egg tasted radically different it to would be abnormal, and if they all where radically different then there would be no norm. However just like twins if any pair of eggs shared some quality then they would be abnormal, and the rest would be normal as the majority of eggs are radically different from each other.
Original post by tazarooni89

There are millions of things that most people share. But any given human being will probably deviate from that list in some way or another.

This means that pretty much every human is abnormal, because it is almost always possible to find something that most humans share that this particular one doesn’t.

Thats bad stats but party true we are all different but as I said we also are not that diverse statistically. If you plotted a graph out of features humans have say arm length you would see a normal distribution curve and you would be able to find a normal range, this is true for literally all human variance. The flaw in your thinking is that you equate variance to huge variance, the amount one varies from another is a significant piece of information when thinking about a norm. Ie one person being 2 inches taller than 3 other people is not the same as one person being 1ft taller than the same group.
Original post by tazarooni89

Consider the following set of numbers:
{-3, 5, 8, 15, 9}

Which ones are abnormal?

You could say that -1 is abnormal because it is the only negative. Or that 5 is abnormal because it is the only prime. Or that 8 is abnormal because it is the only even. Or that 15 is abnormal because it is the only double-digit. Or that 9 is abnormal because it is the only square.

There are many features that are shared by most (but not all) of the numbers. All of them have some of these features but lack others. So does this mean they’re all normal, or all abnormal?

Unless I make it clear which features I’m interested in, how will you be able to tell?

None of them are abnomal because the norm in that group is that they are all different from each other, if you brought in another 8 then the 8s would be abnormal as they are different from the other elements.

How you tell what features to be interested in is determined by the group of elements you choose and what context is inferred by it. Here because its just numbers the context is what ever makes one or afew different from the rest. When the question is "what is a normal person" the group is the society they exist in and the instructions to find what is abnormal is basically statistical mathematics. In short you just look at how far out of the mean that person lies. This is determine by looking at all human features then plotting them on a graph, which at this point you will see a standard deviation graph if its a measurable feature(like height) where normal is the mean, and if its a non measurable feature then like favourite colour then the highest bars in the bar graph is the norm. To find the specifics on the latter you will probably have to do some stats beyond my knowledge to eliminate which bars are high enough to be determined norm. Then from there you simply look at the people that are statistically the most different from the norm in each category and they are abnormal.

That all being said tho not all factors are weighted equally and some things like being able to walk make you far more abnormal than having a weird favourite colour because of our culture. But even there a lot of the time those the factors that are weighted more in terms of how much they make you abnormal are done so for good reason. Say having legs again, is heavily weighted because we are humans and our society/species heavily relies on being able to walk.

So in short the aspects to focus on are not arbitrary they are determined by the set. Ill grant that you can say the choice of set can be arbitrary, but that will depend on the set tbh, or even that some of the different weightings of aspects is arbitrary, but again they are determined by the group and its context.
Original post by Ragman75
No I haven’t arbitrarily chosen colour, because the colour is the only thing that is different among them

That’s fine in your theoretical scenario, to have five otherwise identical eggs with colour being the only difference. But in reality you’re never going to have a set like that. No set of eggs will ever be identical except for one thing. And certainly no set of human beings ever will.

In a set of humans, especially if that set is the whole country/world’s population, there isn’t going to be an objectively “correct” feature like “colour” to use as the criterion for normality, because there are hundreds of other features that differentiate us too.

You might say our culture gives different weighting to some features over another, which is probably true. But again that’s a subjective thing. If our culture suggests that being 3 inches taller than everyone else doesn’t make you abnormal but being 1 foot taller does, then it has drawn an arbitrary line in the middle somewhere. The same is true if you say that having no legs makes you abnormal but having no appendix doesn’t. There is no objective way of differentiating between these features or levels of extremity, other than “that’s how we feel like doing it”.
(edited 4 years ago)
A normal person is a person who's not tall , as tall persons love the attention they hunger for, and try to create too , as most tall people want to stay around other tall persons, because they feel better than normal people. The 85% rest of our population is concidered normal and do the same things, well talk people too so normal things too, but try to make everyone think it's harder for them. We are all fooled into think that everything else than that stupid sport were some tall peoole run around with a big ball, is much harder for tall .
Original post by tazarooni89
That’s fine in your theoretical scenario, to have five otherwise identical eggs with colour being the only difference. But in reality you’re never going to have a set like that. No set of eggs will ever be identical except for one thing. And certainly no set of human beings ever will.

In a set of humans, especially if that set is the whole country/world’s population, there isn’t going to be an objectively “correct” feature like “colour” to use as the criterion for normality, because there are hundreds of other features that differentiate us too.

You might say our culture gives different weighting to some features over another, which is probably true. But again that’s a subjective thing. If our culture suggests that being 3 inches taller than everyone else doesn’t make you abnormal but being 1 foot taller does, then it has drawn an arbitrary line in the middle somewhere. The same is true if you say that having no legs makes you abnormal but having no appendix doesn’t. There is no objective way of differentiating between these features or levels of extremity, other than “that’s how we feel like doing it”.

did you read what i just wrote at all? Ok so they aren't all equal, doesn't matter plot out their features on a graph and you will see a normal; distribution curve, what is normal is the mean.

Again you didnt read anything i wrote. Culture some times can be arbitrary but your example is dead wrong. 1 foot taller is abnormal becuase it falls outside of the mean of heights.

No there is an objective way to differentiate its called statistical analysis. You don't understand statistical mathematics at all do you?
Original post by Ragman75
did you read what i just wrote at all? Ok so they aren't all equal, doesn't matter plot out their features on a graph and you will see a normal; distribution curve, what is normal is the mean.

Again you didnt read anything i wrote. Culture some times can be arbitrary but your example is dead wrong. 1 foot taller is abnormal becuase it falls outside of the mean of heights.

No there is an objective way to differentiate its called statistical analysis. You don't understand statistical mathematics at all do you?

Did study statistics for 2 years in my yourh
Original post by Ragman75
did you read what i just wrote at all? Ok so they aren't all equal, doesn't matter plot out their features on a graph and you will see a normal; distribution curve, what is normal is the mean.

Again you didnt read anything i wrote. Culture some times can be arbitrary but your example is dead wrong. 1 foot taller is abnormal becuase it falls outside of the mean of heights.

No there is an objective way to differentiate its called statistical analysis. You don't understand statistical mathematics at all do you?


Even 3 inches taller than the average height falls outside the mean of heights.

The mean height is not a range, it is a single figure. A normal distribution curve has one, single peak. Anything either side of it is “outside the mean”. Unless you specify a certain level of tolerance (e.g. must not be in the top or bottom X% of values). But in this case, your choice of X is arbitrary.

By the way it’s rather rude of you to keep making personal digs like “you don’t understand statistical mathematics do you?!”. I am a qualified actuary, so I certainly do understand statistical mathematics, possibly much better than you do.

Quick Reply